I watched a special on this story/case a few weeks ago. Before I had kids, I wouldn't have cared a whole lot about the case. I had no frame of reference to relate to. But now that I have a child...a near 2-year old daughter no less...the in depth special on this story was heart breaking. And now to find out the mom is not guilty? Wow.

Seems like she got away with murder.

Sad.

(CNN) -- Casey Anthony was acquitted Tuesday of first-degree murder and the other most serious charges against her in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter.But the jury convicted her on four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to law enforcement officers.As the verdict was read, Casey Anthony cried from her seat in the courtroom, breathing deeply as she looked forward. She then hugged her defense attorney Jose Baez and other members of her defense team.Her father, George Anthony, meanwhile, showed no visible reaction from his seat in the back of the courtroom.Orange County Chief Judge Belvin Perry Jr. set sentencing at 9 a.m. Thursday for Casey Anthony. She faces up to a year in jail on each of the charges she lied to police.The verdict was reached by the seven-woman, five-man jury after deliberating for less than 11 hours in a trial that stretched to more than six weeks and featured allegations of sexual abuse, questions regarding Casey Anthony's competence and various theories on what happened to 2-year-old Caylee.'A very long jury deliberation' Casey Anthony case goes to jury Anthony private investigator opens upCasey Anthony, 25, was charged with seven counts -- first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law-enforcement officer in Caylee's 2008 disappearance and death.Caylee was last seen June 16, 2008, but was not reported missing until July 15, 2008, when Casey Anthony's mother, Cindy Anthony, tracked her daughter down and demanded answers regarding Caylee's whereabouts.Prosecutors alleged Casey Anthony used chloroform to render her daughter unconscious and then duct-taped her mouth and nose to suffocate her. They alleged that she put the child's body in the trunk of her car for a few days before disposing of it. Caylee's skeletal remains were discovered December 11, 2008, by former Orange County meter reader Roy Kronk.Casey Anthony's defense attorneys maintained that Caylee was not murdered at all. They said the child drowned in the Anthony's above-ground pool on July 16, and that Casey Anthony and her father, George Anthony, panicked upon finding her there and covered up the death. George Anthony denied that in his testimony.The defense also attempted to cast suspicion on Kronk, the meter reader. Defense attorneys asserted that he had found Caylee's remains months earlier than he claimed and that he hid them before placing them where they were found. He did that, they claimed, just before notifying authorities in an effort to cash in on the high-profile case.Kronk denied those allegations, according to his attorney. He testified on the stand that after calling police three times in August 2008 to report something suspicious in the woods, a deputy met him at the scene and "chewed me out," telling him he was wasting the county's time. He said he dropped the matter after that until he revisited the scene in December and found Caylee's skull.Prosecutors pointed to Casey Anthony's behavior during the 31 days before Caylee was reported missing as evidence of her guilt.According to testimony, Casey Anthony was not looking frantically for her missing child as she later told police. Instead, she moved out of her parents' home and stayed with her then-boyfriend, Tony Lazzaro. She also got a tattoo saying "Bella Vita" -- Italian for "beautiful life" -- went shopping, witnesses said. She also partied at Orlando nightclubs and participated in a "hot body" contest at one point, according to testimony.Lazzaro and other friends and acquaintances of Casey Anthony's testified that at no time during that month did she tell anyone her daughter was missing or ask for help, and she did not seem anxious or sad. When asked where Caylee was, she told them the child was with her nanny, a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez. She told her parents other stories, including that she and Caylee were in Jacksonville staying with a wealthy suitor, Jeffrey Hopkins.Eventually confronted by her family, Casey Anthony maintained Gonzalez had kidnapped Caylee.Authorities never found the nanny. They found a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez, who denied ever meeting the Anthonys and later sued for defamation. A man named Jeffrey Hopkins took the stand and said he was an acquaintance of Anthony but that the two had never dated. The wealthy suitor and the nanny were among a host of people Casey Anthony made up, her defense attorneys acknowledged -- her attorney referred to them as her "imaginary friends."Anthony's defense against murder charges Florida's case against Casey Anthony People at courthouse waiting for verdict

Defense attorneys explained Casey Anthony's behavior in the month before Caylee's disappearance was reported to police by saying that she had been sexually abused by her father from the age of 8 and had been taught to conceal her pain. George Anthony denied that claim in testimony, saying, "I would never do anything like that to my daughter."Perry ruled just before closing arguments began that there was no evidence Casey Anthony had been sexually abused and prohibited defense attorneys from mentioning it.The defense also said Casey Anthony behaved as she did because of her dysfunctional family. Defense attorney Jose Baez told jurors his client had made some mistakes and bad decisions, but maintained that was not enough to convict her of murder.However, prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick told jurors in her closing argument, "There's nothing that's wrong with Casey Anthony that can't be explained in two words: pathological liar."Casey Anthony's car -- and the odor emanating from its trunk -- was another prong of the state's case against her, made up of largely circumstantial evidence.On June 27, she abandoned her car at an Orlando business, saying it had run out of gas, according to testimony. It later was towed to a wrecker yard, where it remained until July 15, when her parents, George and Cindy Anthony, received a letter from the tow yard and went to pick it up.Numerous witnesses, including a tow yard employee and George Anthony, said there was a vile smell coming from the car's trunk. The prosecution alleges -- and a number of witnesses testified -- that the smell was that of human decomposition.A cadaver dog alerted to the possible presence of human decomposition in the trunk. Arpad Vass, a research scientist at Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, testified that forensic testing of air samples, carpet, scrapings from the wheel well and a spare tire cover found a handful of compounds associated with human decomposition.Vass said testing showed chloroform present at a "shockingly high" level on a carpet sample from the trunk. Defense experts who testified, however, disagreed with Vass' findings and found low amounts of the substance, which is present in a number of household cleaning products. However, prosecutor Jeff Ashton pointed out to jurors, none of the experts disagreed that chloroform was present.Searches conducted on the Anthony computer were another focus of the state's case. Computer experts testified that in March 2008 -- three months before Caylee disappeared -- someone searched for keywords including "chloroform," "how to make chloroform" and "alcohol."Cindy Anthony took the stand during the defense's case and testified that she searched for chloroform, saying that evolved from a search for "chlorophyll" as she was trying to determine if her dog's habit of eating bamboo plants in the back yard was making it tired.Prosecutors introduced work records showing Cindy Anthony was at work at the time the searches were conducted. She said she could have left early that day, as she often took comp time from working overtime.An attorney for Cindy Anthony's former employer took the stand as a rebuttal witness. He brought work records that he said showed that someone using Cindy Anthony's credentials was logged in and using a desktop computer at her office on the days when those searches were done on her family's home computer.On the defense's contention that Caylee drowned in the Anthony pool, Cindy Anthony testified that Caylee was able to climb into the pool on her own. But she said the toddler could not have put on the pool's removable ladder or opened gates leading to the area. Baez told jurors in his closing argument that Cindy Anthony may have left the ladder up the night before, when she and Caylee went swimming, although she testified she did not.Jurors heard hours of forensic testimony, receiving crash courses in DNA, hair analysis and chemistry, among others.Experts testified that a hair found in Casey Anthony's trunk had a band that suggested it was from a decomposing body. The hair was similar to Caylee's, according to forensic experts, but could not absolutely be proved to be hers.The trial was abruptly halted on Saturday, June 25 -- Perry said on June 27 that Casey Anthony had been examined by two psychologists and a psychiatrist following a defense motion questioning whether she was competent to proceed.The defense called a woman to the stand who volunteered in the search for Caylee. Krystal Holloway testified that she and George Anthony had an affair. Holloway said that he once told her what happened to Caylee was "an accident that snowballed out of control." George Anthony denied the affair, and prosecutors used Holloway's statement to police to say she was taking George Anthony's comment out of context. According to the statement, Holloway told authorities George Anthony said he believed Caylee's death stemmed from an accident and that Casey Anthony may have covered it up somehow.Throughout the trial, the pain experienced by Casey Anthony's family was evident. Both her father and mother sobbed on the stand at times recalling their granddaughter. George Anthony also cried as he testified about his January 2009 suicide attempt, which came shortly after Caylee's remains were identified.Jurors heard testimony about items found with Caylee's remains. A Winnie the Pooh blanket matched the one found in the little girl's room at the Anthony home. The laundry bag that prosecutor Jeff Ashton told jurors served as Caylee's coffin was one of a matching set -- the other was found at the home. And all that remained of the little girl's T-shirt, saying "Big Trouble Comes in Small Packages," were some letters and the stitching around the collar.Prosecutors pointed out in closing arguments that only Casey Anthony had access to all the items of evidence.

Jurors heard testimony about items found with Caylee's remains. A Winnie the Pooh blanket matched the one found in the little girl's room at the Anthony home. The laundry bag that prosecutor Jeff Ashton told jurors served as Caylee's coffin was one of a matching set -- the other was found at the home. And all that remained of the little girl's T-shirt, saying "Big Trouble Comes in Small Packages," were some letters and the stitching around the collar.Prosecutors pointed out in closing arguments that only Casey Anthony had access to all the items of evidence.

I would have voted her guilty had I been on the jury. And, I'm shocked that they were unanimous in acquitting her. But, a hung jury wouldn't have surprised me much. Baez did a phenomenal job trying this case and really drove a bus through every small hole to put reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds.

After all the evidence I heard over the last few years, I don't see how anyone could find her innocent.

2009-2010 LGB Official Sponsor of Roman Polak2010-2011 LGB Official Sponsor of the Brad Boyes 2011 2nd round draft pick.2011-2012 LGB Official Sponsor of "The Russian" Evgeny Grachev2013 LGB Official Sponsor of David Perron 2013-2014 LGB Official Sponsor of Jay Bouwmeester

I've been going on with people about this all day. Let me explain a couple of things first...

1- I don't mean to sound callous, because that isn't my intention. But, kids are killed coast to coast on a daily basis. Half of the people who are so drawn into this are drawn in solely based on the reality TV factor. "Damn the kids who are being killed in downtown St. Louis this week...but that Casey Anthony needs to die right now." I just don't get that mentality.

2- I'm not here to talk about guilt or innocence, because I don't know. What I DO know is that this is proof positive that you cannot find someone guilty based solely on perception or TV coverage. Is she a terrible mother? Probably. Is she total white trash? Um...yes. Did she do it? I don't know. I do know that a jury of 12, who had more information than anyone watching this shit on TV found her not guilty. Unanimously. That's good enough for me.

I hate the mob mentality. A lot of times, there's more to something than meets the eye. People are very quick to condemn. What about the people who everyone was SO SURE were guilty...only to be released from death row later? It isn't all that uncommon.

Ruutu15 wrote:2- I'm not here to talk about guilt or innocence, because I don't know. What I DO know is that this is proof positive that you cannot find someone guilty based solely on perception or TV coverage. Is she a terrible mother? Probably. Is she total white trash? Um...yes. Did she do it? I don't know. I do know that a jury of 12, who had more information than anyone watching this shit on TV found her not guilty. Unanimously. That's good enough for me.

Circumstantial evidence, I don't want anyone to get the death sentence based on this.

Ruutu15 wrote:2- I'm not here to talk about guilt or innocence, because I don't know. What I DO know is that this is proof positive that you cannot find someone guilty based solely on perception or TV coverage. Is she a terrible mother? Probably. Is she total white trash? Um...yes. Did she do it? I don't know. I do know that a jury of 12, who had more information than anyone watching this shit on TV found her not guilty. Unanimously. That's good enough for me.

Circumstantial evidence, I don't want anyone to get the death sentence based on this.

From what little I've paid attention to it, many of my law buddies say it turned into a battle of the experts basically. I don't know. But I DO know: it's the State's job to bring the case and prove every single element. They decided to bring this charge, they had to prove their case. My newsfeed on facebook has just a ton of "our system is crap if she got away with this" and bla bla bla. No. The State didn't do it's job. Or couldn't. Which amounts to the same thing.

And like you said Ruutu- you get 12 people to say that there was a reasonable doubt that she did it... good enough for me.

If she DID do it: well... it's a sad truth that the guilty sometimes walk and the innocent are sometimes imprisoned. If you believe the mantra that one innocent person being convicted is worse than a guilty person walking, there still wasn't a travesty of justice today.

[quote="Ruutu15"]1- I don't mean to sound callous, because that isn't my intention. But, kids are killed coast to coast on a daily basis. Half of the people who are so drawn into this are drawn in solely based on the reality TV factor. "Damn the kids who are being killed in downtown St. Louis this week...but that Casey Anthony needs to die right now." I just don't get that mentality. quote]

Ding! I couldn't care less about this verdict. Pretty much the same thing with missing pretty white girls and natural disasters halfway around the world.

My wife and I talked about this last night a little bit. I don't know much about the story and/or case other than a lot of mothers I know took to Facebook today to repeatedly say how the judicial system failed and also to turn my porch light on at 9 PM last night in honor of Caylee.

But my wife and I both said that as a juror, you have to know beyond a reasonable doubt that this person is guilty. It's a HUGE responsibility that I don't think a lot of the folks angry about this are seeing. This woman could have been sentenced to life in prison or even death (I'm assuming). If you have that weighing on you, as a juror, even though your heart may be telling you that she's guilty, you have to have the evidence to convict someone of first degree murder. There's a human element that seems to be glossed over by quite a few observers of this case.

By the way, when will Casey Anthony sell her Heisman to pay for her legal fees? *rimshot*

I've heard people say that "kids die every day...why get worked up about this case?".What the hell is that supposed to mean?If I knew details about those stories, I'd feel just as sad for the kids and their families. The media publicized this case, and people became very familiar with the story. It's just natural to sympathize and be sad/upset when an innocent child is senselessly killed.

And it's not so much that I am upset Casey Anthony got away with murder (or not) or that the judicial system failed (or not). The outcome of the trial won't bring that little girl back, so the trial secondary to me. I'm mainly just sad because when you hear what they found her wrapped in and where they found her, I can't help but imagine what her final moments were like, if she was scared, if she was in pain, wondering why her mother was doing this to her...and then how her body was just left to rot. Caylee will never get to grow up and I'm sad for her family and friends who loved her and have to live the rest of their lives without her. The lives of that immediate family have been ruined. Just sad.

The real tragedy isn't the outcome of the case. People get wrapped up in finding a guilty party. The real tragedy is that an innocent 2-year old little girl was senselessly killed by her apparently mentally unstable mother (or she drowned in a pool and dumped in the woods by her mother...whichever story you believe).

Under the direction of the law, she may very well have been "not guilty" because the prosecution did a lousy job presenting their case...

But I know, and I think every living breathing human being, including the 12 jurors know as well, that Casey Anthony is as guilty as the day is long and she should have fried for this. She's just fortunate that our judicial system has failed, again. My condolences to Caylee. I'm not a religious person, but I hope that she is able to exact revenge on her crap ass excuse for a mother from the great beyond.

glen a richter wrote:Under the direction of the law, she may very well have been "not guilty" because the prosecution did a lousy job presenting their case...

But I know, and I think every living breathing human being, including the 12 jurors know as well, that Casey Anthony is as guilty as the day is long and she should have fried for this. She's just fortunate that our judicial system has failed, again. My condolences to Caylee. I'm not a religious person, but I hope that she is able to exact revenge on her crap ass excuse for a mother from the great beyond.

The prosecution did not do a "lousy job presenting their case." Does presentation to the jury have something to do with a jury trial? You bet your @$$ it does. But the state in this case didn't lose because of their inability to convey their evidence to the jury. They lost because they did not HAVE the evidence to present to the jury.

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't follow this case too closely. But this is the state's baby: the judicial system has basically nothing to do with it other than being the referees and make sure everyone is playing by the rules. The state brings the charges, the state locks the person up, the state decides what to charge, the state brings it to trial, and the state has to prove every single element of every single charge beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 people unanimously agreed that the state did not do that. That's it. Done. The state didn't prove their case.

The court system didn't fail America, the system isn't broke: the State of Florida didn't do it's job- or couldn't. And there is essentially no difference. We in America have decided it's better to let the occasional guilty person go because the state didn't have enough evidence to convict them even though they "probably" did something than to convict an innocent person. That's why the threshold is so high. Even WITH that high threshold, we still obviously have convicted innocent people. And ironically, nobody claims the system is broke when those individuals are sent to prison; it's only when someone who we think is guilty walks that people seem to have a problem.

And cases like Casey Anthony's are extremely rare. When the state brings charges, 9 times out of 10, you're f*cked. The state knows what it needs, they know what they have, and they think they got you. The fact they are charging you, by definition, means the state thinks they have you cornered. You rarely, rarely see a full trial with a not guilty verdict brought back. Close family friend of mine is a federal prosecutor out here in Chicagoland. He's been a prosecutor for 20 years. He said he can count on one hand the number of times that he's had someone walk from a jury trial when he know they were guilty. Is the system perfect? No. But it's the best we have and it works pretty darn well, most of the time.

Sorry for the rant if it came off that way and even though I quoted you I wasn't trying to be personal with any arguments.

glen a richter wrote:Under the direction of the law, she may very well have been "not guilty" because the prosecution did a lousy job presenting their case...

But I know, and I think every living breathing human being, including the 12 jurors know as well, that Casey Anthony is as guilty as the day is long and she should have fried for this. She's just fortunate that our judicial system has failed, again. My condolences to Caylee. I'm not a religious person, but I hope that she is able to exact revenge on her crap ass excuse for a mother from the great beyond.

The prosecution did not do a "lousy job presenting their case." Does presentation to the jury have something to do with a jury trial? You bet your @$$ it does. But the state in this case didn't lose because of their inability to convey their evidence to the jury. They lost because they did not HAVE the evidence to present to the jury.

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't follow this case too closely. But this is the state's baby: the judicial system has basically nothing to do with it other than being the referees and make sure everyone is playing by the rules. The state brings the charges, the state locks the person up, the state decides what to charge, the state brings it to trial, and the state has to prove every single element of every single charge beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 people unanimously agreed that the state did not do that. That's it. Done. The state didn't prove their case.

The court system didn't fail America, the system isn't broke: the State of Florida didn't do it's job- or couldn't. And there is essentially no difference. We in America have decided it's better to let the occasional guilty person go because the state didn't have enough evidence to convict them even though they "probably" did something than to convict an innocent person. That's why the threshold is so high. Even WITH that high threshold, we still obviously have convicted innocent people. And ironically, nobody claims the system is broke when those individuals are sent to prison; it's only when someone who we think is guilty walks that people seem to have a problem.

And cases like Casey Anthony's are extremely rare. When the state brings charges, 9 times out of 10, you're f*cked. The state knows what it needs, they know what they have, and they think they got you. The fact they are charging you, by definition, means the state thinks they have you cornered. You rarely, rarely see a full trial with a not guilty verdict brought back. Close family friend of mine is a federal prosecutor out here in Chicagoland. He's been a prosecutor for 20 years. He said he can count on one hand the number of times that he's had someone walk from a jury trial when he know they were guilty. Is the system perfect? No. But it's the best we have and it works pretty darn well, most of the time.

Sorry for the rant if it came off that way and even though I quoted you I wasn't trying to be personal with any arguments.

From what I understand and what I am being told, if the prosecution hadn't went after such a harsh penalty, then she probably would have been found guilty and spent a long time in jail.She had no priors and they didn't have a cause of death because it took so long to find the body.

glen a richter wrote:Under the direction of the law, she may very well have been "not guilty" because the prosecution did a lousy job presenting their case...

But I know, and I think every living breathing human being, including the 12 jurors know as well, that Casey Anthony is as guilty as the day is long and she should have fried for this. She's just fortunate that our judicial system has failed, again. My condolences to Caylee. I'm not a religious person, but I hope that she is able to exact revenge on her crap ass excuse for a mother from the great beyond.

The prosecution did not do a "lousy job presenting their case." Does presentation to the jury have something to do with a jury trial? You bet your @$$ it does. But the state in this case didn't lose because of their inability to convey their evidence to the jury. They lost because they did not HAVE the evidence to present to the jury.

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't follow this case too closely. But this is the state's baby: the judicial system has basically nothing to do with it other than being the referees and make sure everyone is playing by the rules. The state brings the charges, the state locks the person up, the state decides what to charge, the state brings it to trial, and the state has to prove every single element of every single charge beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 people unanimously agreed that the state did not do that. That's it. Done. The state didn't prove their case.

The court system didn't fail America, the system isn't broke: the State of Florida didn't do it's job- or couldn't. And there is essentially no difference. We in America have decided it's better to let the occasional guilty person go because the state didn't have enough evidence to convict them even though they "probably" did something than to convict an innocent person. That's why the threshold is so high. Even WITH that high threshold, we still obviously have convicted innocent people. And ironically, nobody claims the system is broke when those individuals are sent to prison; it's only when someone who we think is guilty walks that people seem to have a problem.

And cases like Casey Anthony's are extremely rare. When the state brings charges, 9 times out of 10, you're f*cked. The state knows what it needs, they know what they have, and they think they got you. The fact they are charging you, by definition, means the state thinks they have you cornered. You rarely, rarely see a full trial with a not guilty verdict brought back. Close family friend of mine is a federal prosecutor out here in Chicagoland. He's been a prosecutor for 20 years. He said he can count on one hand the number of times that he's had someone walk from a jury trial when he know they were guilty. Is the system perfect? No. But it's the best we have and it works pretty darn well, most of the time.

Sorry for the rant if it came off that way and even though I quoted you I wasn't trying to be personal with any arguments.

From what I understand and what I am being told, if the prosecution hadn't went after such a harsh penalty, then she probably would have been found guilty and spent a long time in jail.She had no priors and they didn't have a cause of death because it took so long to find the body.

See I've heard that too and that doesn't make much sense of me. The general rule is that regardless of what penalty they were going for, the murder elements they had to prove to the jury were the same. In fact, you can get a mistrial if the state or defense comments about how much time the defendant might have to serve if they are convicted. It's a massive no-no. It's a serious thing you don't talk about at trial. The sentencing hearing is where that's all left to the judge to figure out. I'm not a Florida law whiz so I don't know what, if any difference, that would have made during her trial. The jury can technically do whatever it wants regardless of how much the judge tells them to do/ not do and they may very well have taken the potentially harsh sentence into account when arriving at a verdict. As far as I'm aware in Florida or anywhere, they're not supposed to be doing that, but they might have.